Yes, there are times when it is difficult to relax into the music and not fret about "improving" the system. I think one has to work at controlling one's mindset. there are times when I concentrate on the "sound" and enjoy the music and there are times when I just enjoy the music. Some sources are definitely better for one than the other!

For me it's about music.  I have some pretty bad live recordings by such as Lester Young, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane and others I listen to for the fascinating music--despite the sound. And the great thing about my system is that the more it improves, the more listenable these become and the more I get from them.

Well, you must be doing something wrong!

Just kidding. My goal from the start of my Decware experience has been to make all my recordings sound better rather than to work at making the really good ones sound fantastic. I've had some false starts and wrong directions, but over the last two decades I've made a lot of progress. When I got to the really topnotch digital front end is when I really gained momentum. With my treble cut circuit on my amps, with all the tube rolling possibilities and with the ZROCK2 and the different modes I can dial in on my P10, different resistors on my HR-1 tweeters,  etc. I can really alter the sound and I CAN improve the sound of the challenged pre-tape and audience recordings etc. that I listen to.

They have become more detailed and more dynamic than years before. The meat of the equation is the PS Audio duo of transport and DAC that really extracts all the data from the discs. The ZROCK2 and the P10 settings are the next prizes as if a recordings sounds way too bright and thin I can darken and thicken the sound, and if it's too dark and thick, I can thin it out lighten it up. I've come a long way towards my goal of having a very flexible system that I can tailor to suit the needs of various recordings. I have thousands of discs chosen for the music. . . and the system has evolved to accommodate them.

Nope, hold off on that. You've spent enough for now. Just work at tailoring your system with what you have to improve the more inferior recordings. . . or listen to the good ones. We have different "intents" I think.

Certainly don't want to make you feel bad!

Geno,
There’s a P10 on Audiogon for a mere $2800, only 2 years new. Just kidding, had to chime in, I haven’t posted in a bit.
Best,
Scott

You can forget about recordings made before the use of magnetic tape when talking about sound quality.  For all intents and purposes, that is basically pre 1945 or the first 30 years of Jazz recordings. Unless you’re a magician, I don’t care what tweaks you make, you’re not improving that. I agree 100% with the quality of performance from the 20’s - 40’s, some of the best jazz recorded, but not for sound quality, no matter what you do.

Geno wrote on 05/30/19 at 02:30:25:


Frankly I think that is wrong and probably the conclusion come to from an inexperience with trying. As one improves the quality of one's system with these amps as a centerpiece, especially the front end and preamps being very important, and with cabling, isolation and power treatment addressed with these in mind, much more detail is shown from these recordings both tonally and dynamically, and with careful attention they can sound surprisingly good. And the tonal flexibility of the treble cut circuit and the ZROCK2 units are very helpful here. I have some examples that sound nearly as good as later recordings, and thousands that I enjoy listening to. For me your blanket statement is clearly false. Or at the least we differ about what sounds "good" fundamentally. Decidedly one can improve the sound of the playback.

I think my experience is a lot like what Lon has described. As my system/room improves, all recordings sound better, but like Lon, this has long been an objective for me. Counter intuitive in some ways, for thin, brittle recordings, rather than toning down “the bad” for the sake of "listenability," I work to refine resolution, fine detail, space, definition and balance as means to resolve hardness and bring the best out of recordings. My treble and bass adjustments remain wide open.

For me, seeking a "right" spectral and harmonic balance in a complex audio system and room is just really challenging. Yet without that, it seems nothing can sound its best. At the same time, good recordings seem to have a lot of this handled, more easily absorbing system tuning imbalances. As a result, if I tune mainly with really good recordings, I can inadvertently make lesser recordings worse. I find decent recordings with various flaws are often my best teachers, having a lot right, but enough wrong to show me where to go. Balanced for better sound across recordings, including great ones...with good gear and room, and impediments resolved, I find a system/room can help lesser and great recordings a lot...and well implemented Decware tube gear really helps if all else is up to it.

I use reference recordings with varying instruments and voices, and ranges of spectral, harmonic and spacial balances. Some are really good, allowing overall tuning to be a bit too flexible, but I use these to read subtle qualities and nuances...Some are good in balance, but on the edge of powerful density and dynamics, revealing exaggerated tuning if a little off… Some a little lean and bright, edgy and lacking body if off... Some balanced toward bass, darkening mids and highs, causing sacrifices in articulate mids, shimmer and spaciousness if tuning is off... Some with hard horn hits or intense solo violin parts, showing mid/upper-mid hardness, lack of texture and richness if off...Some are almost right, but with the occasional aberrant recorded note that gets too intense if a little off…Some have soft bass lacking definition if off. Using a similar range of references so much, at times a few notes or words can reveal if new tuning is on or off, and other times, it takes a number of recordings to show tuning issues.

Finally, I have come to blame musical unevenness on system and room imbalances as much as on recording qualities. When the system is great only on limited recordings, rather than thinking of it as “honesty,” I look for balance and resolution issues. And as I increase resolution, I have been forced to learn to discern subtler imbalances that good recordings are tolerant of, while doing damage to lesser recordings. Not always completely logical to me, each quality tube or cable or foot having complex characters that may be hard to identify, I have to experiment. But progressive refinements that improve good recordings, and not so good alike, seems the best measure for me. As things get more and more balanced and resolving, typically this method makes great recordings better than had I tuned to great recordings only.

Lots of trial and error with room (treatment with EQ refinement), clean and balanced sounding power, vibration mitigation, cable tuning, and finally a lot of component tuning, slowly I get better at hearing, helping me find issues and solutions. Increased fine detail and space in a frequency balance that works well across recordings seems to be a quite delicate balance, but when good, it can resolve hardness and glare rather than creating it, while conveying recorded material more completely and musically.

For many years tube exploration was primary for me, leaving me with many variations of all the different tubes my components can use. Over time, choices narrowed but remain quite varied, allowing careful mixing and matching for the best resolution and musical balance from a tube set. Also I found seeking the best cables for a given component quite useful, the right cables helping it to “speak” clearly and fully across a lot of recordings, and allowing it to mix better with other components. Unwilling to pay what I would have to for the quality I need, and enjoying figuring it out and fine tuning, most of my cables are now home-made.

Silver on copper wire in well designed speaker cables and ICs, for me, became a good example of how something can be good in general, but uneven, making deciding what is what more challenging. But finally, as my system became more resolving, some really nice seeming cables ended up just too edgy, rigid, and/or uneven top to bottom, particularly for lesser recordings. For ICs and speaker cables, moving to very pure silver and copper wires... carefully tuned balance of wires and gauges used... just-so geometry and damping... and revealing and neutral ends, everything became more resolving, less rigid, and better balanced in frequency range and speed. This also made overall balance easier to read. Some silver plated copper wires are good for me at times for power cables, but so far, only when there is: a good range of smaller gauges making up the final conglomerate gauge; fine tuned geometry and damping; and really good ends.

Using a NOS Tranquility DAC for many years, “analog” and resolving, I tuned it cleaner and more resolving than “stock” with cables, feet, weight, software, software settings, etc. It was a great reference especially for harmonic information...fine detail in space….the DAC helping to achieve high resolution of spacious fine detail.

When I tried a ZDSD, though likely the best for sound, I did not go the SD card route since all my records are on the computer and I like and know this system and software. Using the same highly tuned Mac Mini, and excellent sounding cables, I had some difficulties with the ZDSD. An impediment was the USB-SPDIF converter I had, but I had liked it with the earlier Decware ZDAC quite a bit, so trusted it enough for the trial. For me, the ZDSD was really good sounding on a lot of recordings, but in my system, a bit too uneven for my needs. Compared to the Tranquility it improved better recordings in ways I enjoyed, but also degraded quite a few recordings by comparison. No matter what I tried, cables, feet, settings in the DAC and computer, even lots of subtle EQ experiments... I got close, but I could not even it up for the range of recordings I enjoy. Loving the quality of the ZBIT-type output, I guessed it was some internal design/parts that were not optimal in my system balance. Maybe the developers tuned that Tascam with mostly good recordings, I don’t know. But for me, it was a little too positive or negative depending on the recording, and I knew from the Tranquility, and later, from my very resolving modified Gustard and ZBIT, unevenness does not have to be as much of a challenge.

Everything influenced by room, tubes, feet, cables, weights, etc, it is not surprising system balancing is tricky from the source on. No doubt here, what feeds the DAC makes a big difference for balancing the rest of the sound. “If it is not there at the source, it is not there” kept showing up for me over years, but I feel pretty well “there” now. Even so, as the system changes, slightly-off software and DAC settings... or a very good but not great cable... or the wrong feet for a given job.... lots of things can sound really good until an off-balanced recording shows up. Then I need to dig deeper. Always seeking higher resolution; fine detail and spacial information; excellent bass body and definition; natural tonal balance; and not blowing into hardness with horns and violins, I keep fine tuning as needed. The balance refined, so far, all recordings I listen to get better.

Speaker feet were really big for me for a smooth and resolving balance. I also carefully mitigated driver and speaker box resonance and tuned the plinth spaces, increasing bass impact, speed and resolution, while increasing space and complex detail by reducing smearing. Exploring tweeter caps and resistors quite a lot was also big-time here...finding more complete, richer and slightly sweet resolution.

Gain riding helps a lot for me. My amp started great with the right setup, but after over 2.5 years of progressive modifications, it is profoundly resolving, balanced, musical, and "live" sounding... and generally with good and not-so good recordings. My ZBIT is quite transparent, and adjusting voltage gain can easily be used to adjust the amp’s tonal balance, relaxing or pushing lucid intensity, focus and bass. A heavily modified CSP3, with increased smooth resolution, open lucidity and complex detail, turning it up or down adjusts the same parameters, but with a different flavor and a greater voltage range. I have worked to get it, but complimentary in signature with my ZBIT, the complexity of the two together (at least how I have them tuned), helps me get a more complete and natural sound out of amazingly variable recording balances. One or both adjusted together before the amp, a too bassy recording can be calmed back, solving boom or muddle while increasing clarity and spaciousness. Or if a recording is too top rigid and/or focussed, backing down the CSP3 and/or ZBIT I can find a nice boundary with great focus that is more relaxed and with less tendency to hardness. Or if a recording sounds lean, the two can be tuned independently or together with the Torii to give spacious clarity with bigger bass in the balance, also increasing body. With these components and all else optimized, gain riding in this setup, can be used to tune pretty much any recording for the better, potentiating a more realistic and engaging musical experience.

For me, it is all a creative journey, and it is not perfect. But from years of considering everything as I tune, uncovering and eliminating weak links, and improving better links, I do seem to be able to get “consumed” by the music more completely, more often, and by many more recordings. Finally, I find resolution and balance improvements across recordings a real balancing act, but possible and very fruitful.

Thanks Lon. I agree, it is an amazing and really fun path of exploration, discovery, and realization, nicely fueled by the beauty! I am really grateful for harmonic musical experiences every day, and amazed many times each day at the level of the music I get to be with right here at home.

i agree 100% with what randy has said.  the blessing of this addiction, it that it forces you to find great sounding/recorded music.  this has sent me down many new veins of music that i would not have otherwise.... so, very cool.

the rest of this chasing gear to make shit recordings sound ok, is fruitless!

btw randy has some recommended music on his site.  very good starting point to branch out.

I’m pretty sure that Christmas day 1972 found me at the highest all time level of contentment with my stereo system. Santa had given me a brand new Sears & Roebuck receiver with a built in record changer and a separate 8 track tape deck.  That day, and the few months that followed, found me completely satisfied with my system.  I was 13 years old. My total focus was on the music and nothing else, although, I thought the system itself was pretty darn cool.  Within six months of receiving that $129 stereo system, I had built my first set of speakers, and since then, the chase for what can’t be had has continued.

Looking at the MSRP of all the equipment that has passed through my home is mind boggling.  The combined retail price of the speakers alone easily reaches $75,000......maybe even $100K.  The tube gear has included Moscode, VTL, Aronov, Cary, Eastern Electric, Audio Electronic Supply, on no particular order, and now Decware.  Linn, Rega, Thorens, and over a half dozen CD players ranging from a few hundred dollars to thousands have served as sources.  

Interestingly, only during the past couple of years has my system actually taken huge steps up in performance.  And like Lon, I am discovering that bad recordings and old recordings have been sounding better and better with every change that has been made.  Capacitors, resistors, inductors, wiring, and tube rolling have resulted in far more resolution, and at the same time, much more relaxed and natural sounding music.  My CSP3-25 has too played a major part the past year.

At this very minute, my wife and I are listening to Lauren Daigle’s most recent album that is unfortunately highly compressed and processed, and yet we are enjoying it immensely.  It sounds smooth and detailed, though admittedly a bit lifeless due to all the processing and compression.

So Did I luck out as I assembled this system?  No doubt there was luck involved, but the more than 45 years of assembling systems played a role as well.  Reading all of your comments on this forum for several years has also been a tremendous learning experience.  And at this point, I am 100% convinced that bad recordings can sound at least tolerable and in many cases, far better than tolerable.

The mindset thing........I know that I will never be completely satisfied and happy.  My mom was a piano performance major and my dad was a guitar player singer.  They provided daily intertainment for me and my brothers, and for all of our relatives at all kinds of frequent gatherings.  My little brother was a piano performance major and now owns and runs the Kansas City School of music, where he employs many fine musicians and singers, including a few players from the Kansas City Symphony.  My three children were each instrumental performance majors in college.  I still fool around on my Martin D15 and a Kala KA-SMHT tenor ukulele.  On top of all the live music I’ve been exposed to in my family homes for 60 years, my wife and I regularly attend live concerts of every type of music imaginable.  And the bottom line for me is that until my stereo system sounds like live music, I just can’t be fully content. One thing is for sure though, I will keep working to build that perfect system until my final day arrives.

Doug wrote on 06/01/19 at 23:47:14:

Amen!

We are blessed to have such great fidelity from Decware components.